21st century actuary's blog

Subtitle: publication of recent correspondence relating to my complaint against 2 anonymous actuaries which the Institute & Faculty has wished to be kept secret

Complaint v two anonymous actuaries

(Published at 0057 UK time on 17 May 2012. For previous correspondence on this matter, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10 and Part 11.)

I received the following email on 13 Apr 2012 from Jenny Conway, the newly appointed Case Manager following the decision by an Adjudication Panel on 9 Mar 2012 that there was a case to answer (with regard to one of the allegations at least) and that the complaint should therefore be investigated.  This email was in response to mine of 2 Apr 2012 to her: Continue reading →

Subtitle: publication of details of part 8 which Institute & Faculty sought to censor

UNCENSORED

(Published at 2349 UK time on 16 May 2012. For previous correspondence on this matter, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9 and Part 10.)

Following a very late and unconvincing reply from the I&F yesterday (15 May) to my 20 March questions on confidentiality, I am now publishing here the content of Part 8 which they sought to censor:

On 26 March 2012 I received the following letter by email from the I&F (again marked “strictly private and confidential”).  My response on 2 Apr 2012 appears below also.

Continue reading →

Subtitle: publication of details of part 6 which Institute & Faculty sought to censor

UNCENSORED

(Published at 2336 UK time on 16 May 2012. For previous correspondence on this matter, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8 and Part 9.)

Continue reading →

Subtitle: back publishing all details of correspondence again, having found I&F arguments unconvincing

(Published at 2241 UK time on 16 May 2012, having finally received a reply – after an 8 week delay from Disciplinary Board Chair Jane Irvine which ducked most of my questions and failed to convince me of the correctness of the I&F’s claimed position on confidentiality in the particular case of my professional complaint of 22 Dec 2011 against two anonymous actuaries.  For previous posts on this topic, please see Part 1, Part 2,  Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7 and Part 8). Continue reading →

Subtitle:

Carrying collective responsibility too far/still no clarification from the Institute and Faculty

(Published at 0807 UK time on 28 Apr 2012.For previous posts on this topic, please see Part 1, Part 2,  Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6).

I think this example yesterday (of an Australian politician, Bill Shorten, expressing agreement with what his prime minister has said on a controversial issue, whilst admitting that he doesn’t yet know what she said) is a clear example of collective responsibility being taken too far (“I support what my Prime Minister has said”  But you don’t know what she said! “Well I’m sure she’s right.”):

I am still awaiting any kind of clarification, correction or retraction of what I believe the evidence shows to be a false (or at best highly misleading) statement made on 19 March by the Chief Executive of the Institute of Actuaries on behalf of all Council members.  Next week, in the absence of any progress, as I said I would, I will be reporting this statement to the Institute and Faculty’s Disciplinary Team, to the Institute and Faculty itself, and (if the logic implies this also), to the professional body of which the Chief Executive is a member.  To be consistent with the standards of logic which I have promised to uphold, I may subsequently need to add further complaints with regard to other behaviour which I pointed out appears to have fallen below the standards which the Institute and Faculty has set for its members, in the absence of satisfactory responses to other relevant points in my open letter of 23 December to Council.

(Published at 1408 UK time on 25 Apr 2012. Sent to Marion Young, Secretary to I&F Council, with the request that this be forwarded urgently to all Council members.  For previous posts on this topic, please see Part 1, Part 2,  Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5).

It was put to me this morning that Council members are “not close enough to the details of my grievance” and that it is appropriate to delegate the resolution of this matter to the profession’s senior staff and their legal advisers, who are in direct contact with me.

First, whilst this may be true with regard to the other concerns I have raised, this does not seem to me to apply to my request for a clarification, correction or retraction of what I believe to be a false or at best misleading statement by Derek Cribb on Council members’ behalf.  (It also does not excuse those to whom a response is delegated from replying to all the points raised, rather than – as has happened so far – a small proportion.)  Continue reading →